From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2AB629D27D; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 20:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773348941; cv=none; b=W8DclWVnDjyStJsIohUPH+pEmQ8S+q+m+U0Z2cDLQ5SFSZaYoFkGT839c9V5ahHcOVA4Pup3tZ/oGpX33dYfwI2XT1ib4q4S1cAC9fP7weQipneYAzuPtrndtfC90r04pvshwm3dQ8qf4PnL0FJ6X//hLo+mv4vpYAIk0pUZQZ4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773348941; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v7Mp7oQuSeeAnOPIaJpcQ06wzPNoyTHncHKVCUFHvZ4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=aDxpe2GxiB/lHri1Be4vQG/ZYMiavrhR8Yq62LteKmNU0hP6P0wZgY9EZfnrheWuXrBBp9Xg4We9yLtru811Le/Af1AJFgsB7ir2KNgQ59xScWho8qsRHpzenma1jGn3z/ITQw+EHqWJ2NcwjKXs1DAkT1JiUdiURivkDSrRHJM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=jPrZEGSB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="jPrZEGSB" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB758C4CEF7; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 20:55:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773348940; bh=v7Mp7oQuSeeAnOPIaJpcQ06wzPNoyTHncHKVCUFHvZ4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jPrZEGSBi1TQR0t3km00WpEMYTejgQIVQOjE077ht7cWB1pkJRLriLLy7Jjd5Kerz zF+VvIJYLQbTm0nSWzEM/kqqohL3jJQs/qv6MCXKVMRHXi9DKgZYofma5Hzt2KrtFr LR9+Pe0bGHixbeU3D8vgl8LYkd1EypoBTAR1U/yFO6oI+U84EE2D4fltW4APa3K1+5 cze6ejEVN8VlLmzwMZySmLHlYPwt3/KtqDYQ10Ylk1r+aGFvg9mPnJPPWWmdDM5mF1 B4m5h+JdU/9liZubVMb3aVD+i3ThdUcK6dvL4WIylaTenx7wGKZs4CmHTvYNCoZU1f VBSPEbfslo2XA== Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:55:33 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Roberto Sassu , Dmitry Kasatkin , Eric Snowberg , Alexander Egorenkov , Madhavan Srinivasan , Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin , Christophe Leroy , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Christian Borntraeger , Sven Schnelle , Paul Moore , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Coiby Xu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: Eliminate weak definition of arch_get_secureboot() Message-ID: <20260312205533.GC2747807@ax162> References: <20260309-integrity-drop-weak-arch-get-secureboot-v1-1-6460d5c4bb89@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 12:07:41PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > I pushed out the patch to next-integrity, but am a bit concerned about the > definition: > > +config HAVE_ARCH_GET_SECUREBOOT > + def_bool EFI > + What is concerning about the definition with regards to s390? > Has anyone actually tested this patch on s390, not just compiled it? If so, I'd > appreciate a tested-by tag. It would be good to test (if it is possible to test in QEMU, I am happy to attempt to do so). As far as I can tell, 31a6a07eefeb placed arch_get_secureboot() in such a way that the __weak definition would be used when CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE was disabled, even though ipl_secure_flag should always be available, which this patch avoids. Cheers, Nathan